Mob justice —

Swartz prosecutors face harassment and death threats

Prosecutor was sent postcard of his father's head falling from a guillotine.

The prosecutors responsible for bringing charges against Internet activist Aaron Swartz have become the target of an online harassment campaign. Swartz's family has blamed the prosecutors for his January suicide. In a court filing first reported by Wired, an assistant US attorney wrote that his bosses, Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann, have faced harassment from individuals upset about their handling of the Swartz case.

"ROFLMAO just saw you were totally dox’d over the weekend by Anonymous," one e-mail to Heymann read. "How does it feel to become an enemy of the state? FYI, you might want to move out of the country and change your name."

The e-mail included Heymann's home address and telephone number.

Heymann was also sent a postcard depicting his father's head falling from a guillotine:

A similar picture was sent to Heymann's father, a professor at Harvard.

The filing says Ortiz has also received harassing communications but didn't give any examples.

The court that would have heard Swartz's case is currently considering whether to unseal documents related to his prosecution. The US attorney's office has supported the release of some information but has urged the court to continue to keep the names of some individuals involved in the case under wraps.

"Whatever additional public benefit might exist by disclosing certain names was, in this case, outweighed by the risk to those individuals of becoming targets of threats, harassment and abuse," the assistant prosecutor argued.

137 Reader Comments

The fact that such a large percentage in this thread seem to think it's okay to threaten people with death threats shows just how far the members in here, and society in general, have devolved. This place is only a tiny shred more civilized than the average Yahoo news comment thread, and it gets worse all the time. I'm all for free speech, but it's a shame that society takes this ability to share their thoughts in a public forum for others to read, and shows absolutely no intelligence in their comments.

People these days literally have no sense of right or wrong, and the levels of trolling and hatred that takes place in these threads proves my point. I think what the prosecutors did to Swartz was unconscionable, but firing off death threats to those responsible is not the way to handle it. It stuns me that so many in this supposedly intelligent forum think it's okay. Makes you wonder just how smart the members of this forum are. It sounds like more and more of the Yahoo comment base are becoming Ars readers too.

It is not ok to threaten people at all.

But, I think these stem more from a sense of justice rather than right/wrong.

These prosecutors are effectively untouchable and will never have to face the consequences of their actions. This causes some people to react in some very predictable ways.

Two wrongs do not make right, but that's what happens when there is no accountability.

This sums up most of my feelings on the matter. What I'm curious about with all this is whether or not the death threats are a coordinated thing (like, did someone suggest it in an anonymous IRC or something?) or is it just a bunch of private citizens acting independently of each other?

The first scenario suggests that it could simply be a relatively small group of genuinely outraged people and a bunch of bored, teenage, Jimmy-jump-the-fuck-lately-on-the-bandwagon /btards with nothing better to do.

On the other hand, if it's a bunch of individuals that all just happen to be doing the same thing (and thinking this is their best choice to handle the situation), that's much, much more worrying for a number of reasons.

I am dumbfounded to see people defending this anywhere, let alone here on Ars. Come on, everyone - there is just no place for this kind of threatening rhetoric in a civil society, full-stop.

Nor there is place in it for overreaching government employees nor for companies who try to dictate laws, but alas...

There is no excuse for such a behaviour, nor for the blame culture. One thing is fighting harassment with harassment. Another thing is about blame. If one of prosecutors commit suicide is family going to blame Shwartz family for blaming prosecutors for his son death? This is wrong attitude.

The prosecutors were doing their jobs. You may not agree with how effectively they did them, but then we'd pretty much nowhere if we killed everyone who sucked at least once at their jobs.

This.

Unfortunately, this may only harden the government's stance on these matters. Not to mention, it won't be fun times for the senders of these messages if they are found...

Prosecutors are the first line of THINKING in the justice system. Prosecutors CHOOSE what cases to pursue. It's not always automatic. Yes, they did have a choice. They CHOSE to prosecute Swartz like he was a major threat to society.

Stop and think about it. Swartz committed what should be a minor crime, if any. The monied interests snapped their fingers and the government acted with cruel and unusual intent. It has a chilling affect on many things we do. While I don't support making threats to federal employees, what recourse does a population have when its government has acted with such brazen corruption? When you bend the laws to the disadvantage of the population, with no recourse, then you leave no other alternative than illegal reaction.

There is need for change but if people that are ok with treating other people are going to change this country, they are not going to make it better place. They are never going to stop seeking revenge. Think.

File these antics under "you're not helping." Seriously, threatening and harassing people is not very effective when trying to make a statement.

Maybe not directly, but people are going to have to get used to the idea that if you act like an asshole, there's a decent chance the internet will call you out on it. It's like a force of nature at this point, and I don't see things changing anytime soon.

Mob justice isn't.

Justice itself is a personal illusion. It doesn't exist in nature. Each of us invents its definition for ourselves, just like "good" and "evil". And some of us strongly disagree with how others define it, particularly when their job description claims that they represent us and our morals.

Ryoshi wrote:

I am dumbfounded to see people defending this anywhere, let alone here on Ars. Come on, everyone - there is just no place for this kind of threatening rhetoric in a civil society, full-stop.

I am 'happy' to hear that when they come for you, you will go quietly. Or maybe you just haven't thought about what you'd do if you were the prosecuted party. Take the time. It's worth it.

allswell wrote:

People who feel the need to get online and harass or threaten individuals must need a magnifying glass to use a urinal.

Maybe an electron microscope.

Seriously. Do you really feel big? You're not. You're just a coward praying nobody finds out who you are. Enjoy your sad, sad little life.

Do you feel big, now? Nice job accusing others of your own frailties. As my grandfather used to say, "Engage brain in gear prior to removing foot from mouth."

utopia wrote:

The fact that such a large percentage in this thread seem to think it's okay to threaten people with death threats shows just how far the members in here, and society in general, have devolved. This place is only a tiny shred more civilized than the average Yahoo news comment thread, and it gets worse all the time. I'm all for free speech, but it's a shame that society takes this ability to share their thoughts in a public forum for others to read, and shows absolutely no intelligence in their comments.

People these days literally have no sense of right or wrong, and the levels of trolling and hatred that takes place in these threads proves my point. I think what the prosecutors did to Swartz was unconscionable, but firing off death threats to those responsible is not the way to handle it. It stuns me that so many in this supposedly intelligent forum think it's okay. Makes you wonder just how smart the members of this forum are. It sounds like more and more of the Yahoo comment base are becoming Ars readers too.

When an entire population thinks they are all above average, they're all wrong. Ars used to be a place for real intellectual stimulation; now it's just swarming with baby authoritarians and ineffective anarchists who have inflated egos regarding their intellects and no sympathy for anyone who is not a clone of themselves. Not that it has been enough to drive me away but I do miss the old days...

Death threats aren't helpful. I'm all for public shaming, right up to the point where you bring immediate family into it. Some people lose sight of the fact that they are capable of making terrible decisions that will seriously harm other people; acts that will be forever associated with that person and affect how the community/world views their immediate progeny/ancestors.

Pointing out that Carmen Ortiz was raised wrong because she made a bad call? Sure, why not? Pointing out that if Carmen Ortiz mothers like she chooses to prosecute, her kids must be pretty fucked up? Go right the fuck ahead.

But threatening to murder Carmen Ortiz, or her supposedly fucked-up children, or her supposedly terrible parents? Not fucking cool. Its also -conveniently- the point where your speech ceases to be protected.

He was going to die in prison. Either then, or 40 years later. He might have had a couple of years to see the sun near the end if he was lucky, but life expectancy in prison is probably much shorter than it is otherwise so I wouldn't have bet on it.

Given the future he faced, I can't honestly blame him for choosing to skip to the inevitable.

I am 'happy' to hear that when they come for you, you will go quietly. Or maybe you just haven't thought about what you'd do if you were the prosecuted party. Take the time. It's worth it.

In your world, because I think death threats are completely inappropriate in pretty much any setting that means I don't stand up for my rights or the rights of others?

So...you're crazy. Gotcha.

Nice straw man. Glad to see you're such an enlightened individual that you can demean any position you find even slightly challenging to understand. True genius.

Death threats are deeply inappropriate, but I would ask you what your alternative would be in the face of such indomitable power. Pretty sure your only response would be to hide under the bed and cry. The state has taken great pains to exclude much else. Outbursts, like the subject matter of the story, are illegal and in poor taste, but at least it shows that we aren't utterly chained. No, we will leave that position for our grandchildren... after all, only a bad, terrible, no-good person would exercise their limited, individual power in such a heinous way, so why not take away their rights to that, as well?

If the threat of suicide was that clear, why didn't Aaron get inpatient treatment?

* The death of Aaron Swartz was a tragedy. He suffered from serious depression and that is the main cause of why this young man took his own life.

So much this. Reading the more in-depth accounts of this on sites like the New Yorker, it is very clear that Aaron's family, girlfriend, and lawyers knew just how depressed he was and that suicide was a possibility.

The people who cared about him most failed to act in getting him help.And within 24 hours of his death, those same people made public statements that put all the blame on the prosecutors.

Popehat, who has been covering the Prenda case lately, had this to say about yet another case where newspapers reported the maximum sentence possible for the crime she'd committed. (Stealing some frozen meatballs from her employer.) http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloud ... ournalism/ Neither she, nor Aaron, was looking at "the maximum sentence". Did those reporting on either case bother to spend the extra minute to find out the actual sentence range that was being looked at for the seriousness of the crime? NO. Even if the prosecution used the maximum 35 or 50 year maximum for the crimes involved.. what kind of piss poor public defender wouldn't immediately point out the actual sentencing guidelines for the seriousness of the crime? (Aaron had a competent legal team of his choosing.)

Swartz was threatened to spend most of his remaining life in prison...

He really wasn't.

Really.

Even his defense team has admitted as much.

Can we just drop this utter stupidity.

Yes. I called it stupidity. It's stupid to trot out the same false meme every time a topic comes up. Stupidity like this just feeds the trolls.

Wasn't he? From wiki his sentence was going to be 38 years in prison. He was 27 years old when he died, so he would have been out of prison at 65 years old. The average life expectancy of a male in the US is currently 75.35 years (Which is a bit higher than I had though, I believed it was 72). Life expectancy in prison is shorter than it is otherwise, so reasonably it could be expected that he would have on the order of 5 to 10 years outside of prison before he died. Even at a full decade that still represents slightly under 80% of his remaining life spent in prison.

My previous post was inaccurate I will note, if he had lived a relatively normal life span he would likely have not died in prison. Even still, I can't blame him for making the choice he made.

I am 'happy' to hear that when they come for you, you will go quietly. Or maybe you just haven't thought about what you'd do if you were the prosecuted party. Take the time. It's worth it.

In your world, because I think death threats are completely inappropriate in pretty much any setting that means I don't stand up for my rights or the rights of others?

So...you're crazy. Gotcha.

Nice straw man. Glad to see you're such an enlightened individual that you can demean any position you find even slightly challenging to understand. True genius.

Death threats are deeply inappropriate, but I would ask you what your alternative would be in the face of such indomitable power. Pretty sure your only response would be to hide under the bed and cry. The state has taken great pains to exclude much else. Outbursts, like the subject matter of the story, are illegal and in poor taste, but at least it shows that we aren't utterly chained. No, we will leave that position for our grandchildren... after all, only a bad, terrible, no-good person would exercise their individual rights in such a heinous way, so who needs rights at all?

"Nice straw man".

"You'd probably hide under the bed and cry."

Yup, definitely crazy. There's no other explanation for that level of utter cognitive dissonance.

And just for the record, I am a huge activist who writes letters to legislators all the time regarding reform of the justice system. I don't write death threats, though, because I'm not a raging psychopath.

And now because of people acting like this, they are afraid to release names because of potential harassment. This is the wrong way to go about bringing change to the system (I assume that's what most people are pushing for in this "Mob" - not just "for teh lulz")There are right ways of doing things and wrong things, I think death threats usually end up on the wrong side of this scale.

Ya, bro. 'Cause they were definitely gonna unseal those documents and make them available to the public. Finger was just about to hit send on the email to authorize. For realz.

All this cause and effect speculation is annoying as hell. "OMG! Now PACER will never be open to public because Mr. Swartz's actions!" "OMG now they can't properly investigate for fear of reprocussions from others' from their findings!"

I do not condone threatening someone like this. But in our legal system, there is no possible way for people to protest, there is no recourse. Prosecutors have immunity, cops have immunity, they can do as they please. The whole system was designed to make it easy to prosecute anyone on any kind of trumped up charge and punish them beyond all measure of sanity.

The prosecutors were doing their jobs. You may not agree with how effectively they did them, but then we'd pretty much nowhere if we killed everyone who sucked at least once at their jobs.

All true. I don't condone this kind of behavior at all.

Still, the DOJ has no problems harassing people and making their lives utterly miserable.

And ultimately, at issue is the job they are doing. As in, why did they devote so much time and resources to a fairly trivial case while nothing happens to others(as in the finance industry)? Sadly, we already know the answer; the banks have more money than the US government and the DOJ lawyers want jobs at Wall St. law firms when they leave the DOJ.

This is the sort of response you get when you have gross institutional inequality by the government. Sad, but true.

Yup, definitely crazy. There's no other explanation for that level of utter cognitive dissonance.

And just for the record, I am a huge activist who writes letters to legislators all the time regarding reform of the justice system. I don't write death threats, though, because I'm not a raging psychopath.

This is exactly the kind of baby authoritarianism that I was talking about. "If you don't agree with my point of view 1000%, you are stupid/crazy/worthless/evil." If you think that makes you an intelligent person, well, I'd say you should keep thinking about it but thinking doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

And who you are IRL, in addition to being easily fabricated, has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. Thanks for trying an "argument from authority" where you are so conveniently "the authority," (gee, you do that so effortlessly I guess you have a lot of practice) but I don't go for that kind of illogical tripe.

Seeing as you now view me as "enemy," I figure I should make clear that I do think violent threats are over the top and beyond the pale. But for otherwise powerless people who have no other course of action, it makes sense that this would happen. Go look up what empathy means. You seem to be a little low.

Edit: as an aside, I would ask you to note that I have not reflexively clicked '-1' on each of your posts as you have mine. Behold what actual self-esteem looks like. Now go get some of your own.

Swartz was threatened to spend most of his remaining life in prison...

He really wasn't.

Really.

Even his defense team has admitted as much.

Can we just drop this utter stupidity.

Yes. I called it stupidity. It's stupid to trot out the same false meme every time a topic comes up. Stupidity like this just feeds the trolls.

Wasn't he?

No. He wasn't.

He was offered a plea deal of 6 months. Later during negotiations he was offered a plea of 0 months.

If he were found guilty of all counts, and the judge applied the sentencing guidelines without any mitigating circumstances, he would have faced something more like 7.5 years. In reality, he was facing accepting a plea deal of 0-6 months, or fighting the charges with a risk of anywhere from full exoneration to 7-8 years in prison.

He was not in any risk of spending most of the rest of his life in prison. That kind of statement is simply wrong.

Yup, definitely crazy. There's no other explanation for that level of utter cognitive dissonance.

And just for the record, I am a huge activist who writes letters to legislators all the time regarding reform of the justice system. I don't write death threats, though, because I'm not a raging psychopath.

This is exactly the kind of baby authoritarianism that I was talking about. "If you don't agree with my point of view 1000%, you are stupid/crazy/worthless/evil." If you think that makes you an intelligent person, well, I'd say you should keep thinking about it but thinking doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

And who you are IRL, in addition to being easily fabricated, has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. Thanks for trying an "argument from authority" where you are so conveniently "the authority," (gee, you do that so effortlessly I guess you have a lot of practice) but I don't go for that kind of illogical tripe.

Seeing as you now view me as "enemy," I figure I should make clear that I do think violent threats are over the top and beyond the pale. But for otherwise powerless people who have no other course of action, it makes sense that this would happen. Go look up what empathy means. You seem to be a little low.

Edit: as an aside, I would ask you to note that I have not reflexively clicked '-1' on each of your posts as you have mine. Behold what actual self-esteem looks like. Now go get some of your own.

You continually posit that there is no middle ground between sending death threats and cowering under your bed. That is entirely, provably false, and my real-life activism absolutely DOES have a bearing on that (you know, by being a direct counter-example...and interestingly enough not an argument from authority in the slightest. I suggest you actually look up what that means.).

There is nothing reflexive at all about downvoting your posts: your posts are objectively silly. I mean here you are arguing that people who send death threats have a lot of empathy.

And don't kid yourself - I don't view you as an "enemy", you melodramatic nutcase, I view you as a fool.

File these antics under "you're not helping." Seriously, threatening and harassing people is not very effective when trying to make a statement.

Quote:

Swartz's family has blamed the prosecutors for his Jaunary suicide.

Tragic as it is, I don't see how you can blame anyone but the person who takes their own life. Sure, there are circumstances and events that may be considered contributing factors, but in every suicide there is only one person ultimately to blame.

Yes, a person who has a mental issue who cannot care for themselves and it is the responsibility of the state to are for them.

The state offered to take care of him by admitting him into custody. No, really. His lawyers told the prosecution that he was a suicide risk, and the prosecution told them to bring him in and they would put him in protective custody. His counsel turned down that offer. So now whose responsibility is it?

If the threat of suicide was that clear, why didn't Aaron get inpatient treatment?

* The death of Aaron Swartz was a tragedy. He suffered from serious depression and that is the main cause of why this young man took his own life.

Let me just check something here: the United States is a society where bullying someone to the point of suicide is widely condemned and considered a heinous, despicable act, right? A society where doing such a thing to someone who you know struggles with depression is very likely to end with criminal charges?

What makes these prosecutors are so special? Why shouldn't we treat them the same as all the other filth that do that?

It is utterly reprehensible and inexcusable to threaten or harass anyone, at any time, for any reason. We are adults and have much more appropriate and acceptable ways to express our disapproval.

That said, I have much more sympathy for a dog who dies on TV than I do for Ortiz and Heymann. I don't want to say they deserve something I just described as inexcusable, but I won't waste a moment of sympathy for this scum. They abused every bit of discretion and trust placed in them by the voting, taxpaying public, and while they don't deserve death threats, they clearly deserve to be fired and disbarred.

If the threat of suicide was that clear, why didn't Aaron get inpatient treatment?

* The death of Aaron Swartz was a tragedy. He suffered from serious depression and that is the main cause of why this young man took his own life.

Let me just check something here: the United States is a society where bullying someone to the point of suicide is widely condemned and considered a heinous, despicable act, right? A society where doing such a thing to someone who you know struggles with depression is very likely to end with criminal charges?

What makes these prosecutors are so special? Why shouldn't we treat them the same as all the other filth that do that?

Aaron Swartz was accused of felonies that the government had good evidence to prove that he committed. People who are at risk of suicidal depression do not and should not get automatic "get out of prosecution free" cards. End of story.

If the threat of suicide was that clear, why didn't Aaron get inpatient treatment?

* The death of Aaron Swartz was a tragedy. He suffered from serious depression and that is the main cause of why this young man took his own life.

Let me just check something here: the United States is a society where bullying someone to the point of suicide is widely condemned and considered a heinous, despicable act, right? A society where doing such a thing to someone who you know struggles with depression is very likely to end with criminal charges?

What makes these prosecutors are so special? Why shouldn't we treat them the same as all the other filth that do that?

Aaron Swartz was accused of felonies that the government had good evidence to prove that he committed. People who are at risk of suicidal depression do not and should not get automatic "get out of prosecution free" cards. End of story.

He performed harmless actions in pursuit of a goal that the President of the United States of America endorsed days later in an official executive action. His actions were classed as crimes under an overbroad interpretation of an overbroad piece of legislation written well before the rise of global computing networks. For this, Aaron received the full wrath and fury of the US attorney's office. The prosecutors are not robots, they are provided discretion and in this instance, have proven themselves unworthy. The law is not a moral authority. Trying to simplify this case down to 'well, he broke the law' is either intellectually bankrupt or startlingly naive.

Should people be making threats? No. But if you expect me to feel bad for a bunch of bullies because a bigger bully has come along and scared them? Well, that will be a cold day in hell.

Aaron Swartz was accused of felonies that the government had good evidence to prove that he committed. People who are at risk of suicidal depression do not and should not get automatic "get out of prosecution free" cards. End of story.

He performed harmless actions in pursuit of a goal that the President of the United States of America endorsed days later in an official executive action.

They weren't harmless to JSTOR, MIT, or MIT's students and faculty.

Quote:

His actions were classed as crimes under an overbroad interpretation of an overbroad piece of legislation written well before the rise of global computing networks.

There was no overbroad interpretation anywhere. His action were specifically prohibited by the statutes in question.

Quote:

For this, Aaron received the full wrath and fury of the US attorney's office. The prosecutors are not robots, they are provided discretion and in this instance, have proven themselves unworthy.

Their discretion was offering him a remarkably light sentence in return for admitting guilt to the crimes he committed. They don't owe him anything more, and they owe the people of the country they serve nothing less than to make sure criminals are suitably punished. If Swartz had a problem with that, it was his right to take his case before a judge and jury.

Quote:

The law is not a moral authority. Trying to simplify this case down to 'well, he broke the law' is either intellectually bankrupt or startlingly naive.

It always comes down to "did he break the law". All people have responsibility for their actions. If you break the law, you have responsibility for that, even if you felt your "cause" was just. MLK did time because he broke the law for a just cause. So did Mahatma Ghandi. And Nelson Mandela. Was Swartz' "cause" so much more just than theirs that he didn't deserve to do any time at all?

The prosecutors were doing their jobs. You may not agree with how effectively they did them, but then we'd pretty much nowhere if we killed everyone who sucked at least once at their jobs.

Actually I think the problem was that they were very effective at their jobs. The government should never leverage its power to force an individual to plea. It is an abuse of power. The government should put the facts to the court and let the court decide. The government did not want this getting to trial because the potential loss would have been very damaging. So they resorted to blackmail and extortion to get the job done.

I certainly don't condone sending death threats, especially to those in law enforcement, regardless if they are deserved or not. However, in this case the message really is quite clear; people do not like bullies. Try and excuse the prosecution's actions however which way you want ranging from "they were just following the law" to "if the public did'nt want things to work this way they should change it thru the system" but those are just excuses for the actions that were taken.

Every person who was part of this entire mess had many chances at their disposal to change how this could have been handled. And it's quite clear by the statements made by Ortiz that they had no problems with taking these rather heavy-handed tactics it's just that this time they're getting called on it.

Until the Justice Department, and law enforcement in general, stop using tactics like this that's all they will ever be viewed as; the largest gang of bullies in the United States. The only real difference here is that if you take a swing at one of these bullies you can pretty much kiss your life goodbye because they WILL make you pay for daring to do so.

For myself, I find it really depressing to see people who I used to view as the good guys as good guys anymore and view them as more dangerous than the criminals. At least with a crook you know where you stand and they're honest about what they want. -_-

The problem is there seems to be building frustration with the US criminal system along with other problems. The lashing out at Ortiz and Heymann, while wrong, should be a warning that people are getting frustrated and angry at real and perceived injustice. There are many raw, edgy nerves that are easily set off. As the frustration and anger builds so does resentment and the longer it festers the worse the final outcome.

There are a lot of good people in the US court system. Judge Wright in LA has the respect of many with his handling of the Prenda case. The good, honorable of the Judge Wrights is easily destroyed by overzealous antics of prosecutors like Ortiz or Nifong.

Are these people crazy? Oh wait they are, because communicating a death threat (sometimes called 'terroristic threats' depending on the law applied) is like at least a few years in jail or other penalties which may not make it all worth while and the Swartz case will still be what it is.

Actually, they were. JSTOR incurred no damages and has said as much on the record. MIT could feasibly request restitution in the amount of the cost to replace the locks on that closet. They otherwise have not made any claim of harm.

Quote:

There was no overbroad interpretation anywhere. His action were specifically prohibited by the statutes in question.

Several legal experts and Congressmen disagree. Can I ask what makes you an authority on this subject when jurors and legislators from both houses of Congress and both sides of the aisle, arguably experts on the subject, disagree with your assertion?

Quote:

Their discretion was offering him a remarkably light sentence in return for admitting guilt to the crimes he committed. They don't owe him anything more, and they owe the people of the country they serve nothing less than to make sure criminals are suitably punished. If Swartz had a problem with that, it was his right to take his case before a judge and jury.

They offered him a prison sentence for a harmless act. You consider that to be suitable punishment?

Quote:

It always comes down to "did he break the law". All people have responsibility for their actions. If you break the law, you have responsibility for that, even if you felt your "cause" was just. MLK did time because he broke the law for a just cause. So did Mahatma Ghandi. And Nelson Mandela. Was Swartz' "cause" so much more just than theirs that he didn't deserve to do any time at all?

Sure, that's fair enough. But you're pretending the prosecutors have some sort of moral high ground. Apartheid was the law, too. Do you think that absolves Mandela's jailers of anything? Was the government righteous because they were enforcing the law? Do you think Bull Connor just got a bad rap because "it always comes down to did he break the law"? No. I'm glad at least that you've put Aaron in such high company. Now let's not pretend those scumbags who hounded him to death are any more righteous than the unwashed masses yearning to scare them.

Swartz was threatened to spend most of his remaining life in prison...

He really wasn't.

Really.

Even his defense team has admitted as much.

Can we just drop this utter stupidity.

Yes. I called it stupidity. It's stupid to trot out the same false meme every time a topic comes up. Stupidity like this just feeds the trolls.

Wasn't he?

No. He wasn't.

He was offered a plea deal of 6 months. Later during negotiations he was offered a plea of 0 months.

If he were found guilty of all counts, and the judge applied the sentencing guidelines without any mitigating circumstances, he would have faced something more like 7.5 years. In reality, he was facing accepting a plea deal of 0-6 months, or fighting the charges with a risk of anywhere from full exoneration to 7-8 years in prison.

He was not in any risk of spending most of the rest of his life in prison. That kind of statement is simply wrong.

That could well be, and I'm not American so I certainly don't know as much about the American justice system as you seem to. Where did the numbers come from?

Wiki attributes this;

“[I]f convicted on these charges,” said Ortiz, “Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.”

To Ortiz, who appears to be a prosecutor involved in the case according to the article. Wouldn't she have accurate information on what the sentences for the crimes that Swartz was charged with are? Or was she mistaken or the quote misattributed? In the US how does a defendant get information on the penalty for a charge that he or she is facing? Does that come from the Prosecutor? Or the Judges?

From what you're saying is sounds like sentences car vary wildly, but I may have misunderstood. How can he be charged with a crime that is punishable by either 0 or 7 or 38 years in prison? Or are you referring to separate charges? Perhaps the combined penalties would have come to 38 years?